Pre-installed ubuntu with Win7 license / image for VirtualBox

May 8, 2012

Posted By:  vilbara

7 Votes

Status: Acknowledged

Promote

Every developer I know which are using linux or mac os x, still have Windows VM: If you develop for web, you need to test on IE.

Personally, I would never buy an ubuntu pre-loaded because I would need to buy a windows license separately anyway - and this is costly. I would rather buy a notebook with OEM Win7, install ubuntu on it and run Win7 inside VirtualBox.

Providing a proper licese or VirtualBox image for Win7 would be the only option I would buy ubuntu pre-loaded.

7 Votes | 7 Comments | Report Abuse

Please login to IdeaStorm to post a comment.

    Comments :
     

  • May 12, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: TuxRaiderPen

    I can't identify the agnecy(s) and/or clients.... but

    Agency wise: I tossed out viros, and all its nonsense. Everything is now on thin clients back to LTS systems. All the systems were wiped,  a based Linux distro we develop in house put on and the desktop is pulled off the LTS servers.  The servers have always been Linux  based any way, time to clean the rest of the trash out.  Makes it easy for those who need to work at home to VPN in and work from home or the road if need be.

    Client wise: When I work outside my agency, we develop on and for Linux only. If we deal with clients who wish to use it on non Linux OS, they are advised they can choose to use the standards compliant browser(s) for that viros or choose to use another firm. We do not test, or develop for these situations. Few have an issue with it, their IT just isntalls a compliant browser of which there are 3, and its over. There is only one problem child in the mix. I am not wasting programming hours on that any longer, probably a good 30% was wasted fixing issues for version of that nonsense alone, only to find it broke it another.

    Like I said, some of us in the IT world are willing to take a stand against things, even if it means letting work walk out the door. I am not willing to give in just to get work, I would rather take less work or got out business than work with something I despise.
    •  

  • May 11, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: IdeaStorm Moderator Cy_J

    Interesting back and forth here but I think it would better serve both of you to avoid the confrontational tone.  Opinions vary but we should be able to debate our differences in a professional manner.  You just might end up learning something new in the process.  :)
    •  

  • May 11, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: AlfromRoke

    First of all to get the issue of authority out of the way, I work for a company developing web applications for a large number of clients including multi-billion corporations. And yes, I do know the horror of supporting IE every day (this week I have spent about 8 hours debugging a IE 9- specific bug).
    Now, getting down to the issue; first of all there is the issue of userbase. IE is used by about 50% of the population (depending on the country where the application will be used), thus giving two options. Either 1 out of every two of your users are unhappy or you are only working in a corporate setting where you can force everybody to use a single browser (thus lowering yourself to the same level as those developers who had "best viewed in IE" messages on their sites in the old days). Secondly, despite the fact that IE6-8 are a horror to support you probably must still remember that when IE6 was released it was quite a technical masterpiece (for it's time) and IE has been improving greatly over the last few years (to get IE9 and IE10 compatible it takes only slighty longer than the other browsers up and running), so a bit more nuisance would be really appropriate. Thirdly a lot of imcompabilities with ecmascript were introduced by mozilla as well which (just like with IE) got standardized later along the way. Take the xmlhttprequest for example, it was introduced as a non-standard feature in IE and is now widely adopted, so if you don't want to use any microsoft stuff, at the very least you should stop using ajax in *all* your applications :D . And calling windows and/or IE a winvirus is just really below the level of a proffesional.
    •  

  • May 10, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: TuxRaiderPen

    Well, no  I am not an amateur. I work for a large statewide agency, and numerous clients.

    We no longer test on any non Linux systems.

    After having to waste time with ECMAScript incompatibilites introudced by a certain browser, we specifically no longer support it. too much wasted time and code to test for browser i and then fix its problems. Browsers which follow the standards and allow code to be written to that standard will be used.

    Some of us are willing to fight and take a position, others  are willing to give in. We chose to take a position, and we are glad we have done so. More productive coding, more productive results, no headaches. Happy programmers AND CLIENTS/USERS.
    •  

  • May 10, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: AlfromRoke

    TuxRaiderPen - Sorry to say so, but you just disqualified yourself from calling yourself developer by saying that. At most you are a random amateur hobbyist making software for yourself, as saying it's a good thing your software can't be used by potential users is just an atrocity of such an magnitude I haven't seen it in a long time. And aside of that, I have used windows, mac and linux all extensively and not being able to recognize windows' own merits (and problems) is non sensible.
    •  

  • May 10, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: TuxRaiderPen

    "Every developer I know which are using linux or mac os x, still have Windows VM: If you develop for web, you need to test on IE."

    No, not every developer meets that criteria, I do not. Nope, I use VM's to have different distros to test, use etc.. no winvirus allowed.

    I don't test for that other browser either, it if breaks on that OS and browser, GOOD!

    And I don't want virtualbox from that other tyrant company either. It must be a choice to pick VM provider and offer VMWare Player, or none by default. I don't want to have to remove crud I don't want around just like I don't want openjdk.

     
    •  

  • May 8, 2012     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: AlfromRoke

    http://www.webupd8.org/2011/09/test-websites-in-internet-explorer-9-8.html seems to solve this mostly

    "Yes, the VMs are 100% legit, with 2 caveats: they will never pass the Windows Geniune Advantage crap, and they'll need to be reset after 30 days by reverting to the clean snapshot that's created when installing via ievms. You can run games or whatever, but you'll have to reinstall every 30 days, which Microsoft (rightfully IMHO) assumes is more frustrating that it's worth."

    So I prefer a cheaper laptop over a windows license to be honest.